CRITICAL THINKING

Chapter 5
Argument Types and
Traditional Evaluation Methods

1
Arguments Can Go Wrong Two Ways:

The premises are unsatisfactory.

OR
The premises don’t support the conclusion
adequately either because they don’t provide
any evidence (and thus fail to support) or they
do not offer enough evidence (and thus fail to
sufficiently support).

2
Unsatisfactory Premises:
P1) Everything is either immoral or fattening.
(refutable)
P2) Smoking marijuana is not immoral.
(controversial)
_____
C3) Therefore, smoking marijuana is fattening.

• Here the conclusion must follow even though it’s an

unsuccessful argument. Note: Each separate premise must be
evaluated for satisfactoriness. Never assess the acceptability
of the conclusion (that’s why there’s a line!)
• The only exception is when the conclusion is an intermediate
conclusion since it is used to provide evidence for the main
conclusion.
3
Failing to Support:
P1) Many of the performances in the Batman film series
by director Christopher Nolan were considered very
good by many film goers and people. (common knowledge)
P2) The movies cost over $100 million each to produce.
(c.k.)

P3) The films were big box office hits. (c.k.)

P4) The film is a superhero movie. (c.k.)
_____
C4) Therefore, the Batman series by Nolan accurately
represents what life is really like in New York City.
Here, no evidence is provided towards the conclusion’s being true. Note: if
premises are dependent, you consider them together; if independent
(as here), you consider them separately. As well, even if the Premises
are unsatisfactory, they may still be relevant and thus offer support for
the conclusion.
4
Failing to Sufficiently Support
P1) If people stopped using as much salt as they do
now, they would be healthier. (common knowledge)
P2) People ought to be interested in their own health.
(c.k.)
_____
C3) Therefore, the government
should force people to stop using salt.

Note: If the premises already failed to provide support, then they

automatically do not provide sufficient support! If there is no
evidence then obviously there can’t be good enough evidence! Here
the conclusion is far too strong.

5
MAIN ARGUMENT TYPES

DEDUCTIVE INDUCTIVE
CERTAINTY PROBABILITY
All dogs are friendly. 70% of consumers like
Here’s a dog. sodas thus you probably
so it must be friendly. like sodas too.

ANALOGY
SIMILARITY
I have a bad cold.
You have a bad cold.
So, if I should stay home, you should too.
6
VALIDITY AND SOUNDNESS
The Traditional Approach to Evaluating Deductive
Arguments (only)

It makes no sense to say a whole argument is true or

false since truth or falsity refers to propositions only.

Validity or invalidity applies to deductive arguments

where inferences are drawn from one proposition to
another.

Arguments may be valid even when its conclusion and

one or more of its premises are false. Validity is about
the structure of the argument not the content.

7
Validity

To test for validity simply ask yourself: Are

there any possible circumstances in which the
premises can be true and the conclusion false?
If the answer is ‘no’ then the argument is valid.
If the answer is ‘yes’ then the argument is
invalid..
VALIDITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER
OR NOT THE PREMISES ARE IN FACT TRUE OR
FALSE.
A deductively valid argument is one in which it
is impossible for the premises to be true and
the conclusion false.

8
Sample Deductively Valid Arguments

All dogs are mammals. (True)

All mammals have lungs. (True)
Therefore, all dogs have lungs. (True)

All beer drinkers drink milk. (False)

All milk drinkers are poets. (False)
So, all beer drinkers are poets. (False)

All cats are birds. (False)

All birds are mammals. (False)
Thus, all cats are mammals. (True)
9
Pick anything for A and B
These are all Valid
P1) If A happens then B will happen.
P2) A did happen.
----
C3) Therefore, B will happen.

P1) All A’s are B’s.

P2) Here’s an A.
----
C3) Therefore, it must be a B.

P1) Option A or B
P2) Not B
----
C3) Therefore, A
Validity
Since validity is not concerned with the actual truth value of the
argument a deductively valid argument can have true premises and a
true conclusion, false premises and a false conclusion, or false
premises and a true conclusion. Indeed, you do not need to know
the truth or falsity of the premises at all.

This argument is deductively valid:

All X’s are Y’s. (truth value unknown)

All Y’s are Z’s. (truth value unknown)
So, all X’s are Z’s. (truth value unknown)

The only combination that is not possible for validity is true

premises and a false conclusion.

11
Invalid Arguments

12
Invalid Arguments
Some invalid arguments contain false premises and
true conclusions:
All cats have wings.
All dogs have wings.
Therefore, all dogs are mammals.

Some contain all false propositions:

All dogs have wings.
All cats have wings.
Therefore, all cats are dogs.

13
Soundness

A deductively SOUND argument is one in

which the argument is deductively valid
AND the premises are in fact true.

Thus an argument can be valid but

UNSOUND, but a sound argument cannot
be invalid.

A deductively sound argument cannot be

rejected.

14
Inductive Arguments

Traditionally evaluated as “strong” or “weak”.

Premises are empirical and describe or predict that the

world is/ will be. They draw general conclusions based
on specific premises.
They are used in scientific generalizations, historical
claims, forecasts, probability claims etc.

15
Inductive Arguments

Premises of an inductive argument do not

guarantee the truth of the conclusion but only
deal with probabilities:
• Most small cars are fuel efficient, so I bet your
small car is as well.
• 62 out of 100 people we asked said they’d vote for
some one conservative so politicians with
conservative views will likely win the next election.
• The past few winters have had more extreme
temperatures than the historical average so this
trend may continue.
Induction Arguments
Strong

Most dogs are friendly.

Here is a dog.
Therefore, this dog is probably friendly.

Weak

Every student in my university class has a job.

So, all university students here have jobs.

17
Reason and Rationality

• “I won’t win the lottery” is a reasonable belief.

• We act rationally when we act upon reasonable
beliefs or generalizations that are based on
acceptable and relevant premises - even if we are
mistaken about the outcome. Thus,

• It is rational to assume that the sun will rise tomorrow.

• It is rational to make life plans on the assumption that you

will be alive in ten years, next year, tomorrow, next ten
minutes.

• But these can still turn out false!

Probability not Certainty

• Induction does not give you certainty. The conclusion isn’t

guaranteed. The premises may provide 99.9% probability
that the conclusion will follow but there’s always that
chance that it doesn’t come about.
• “Every time I’ve bought a lottery ticket, I've lost. So what
is the point of me wasting my money? I won’t win.”
-- Yet I buy just one more and win!

• To be even more careful we should qualify our inductive

conclusions, for example: ‘I will probably lose’ instead of ‘I
will lose’.
What evidence do you have?

• The weather has generally been turning colder

these last few days so it will probably be colder
tomorrow still.

• 3 out of 4 dentists recommend our brand of

toothpaste. Accordingly, your dentist will likely
recommend it too.

• Almost all of my students will pass all of their

courses this year, hence, almost all university
students will pass this year.
Sample Size

• You wouldn’t generalize that “People aren’t

honest.” on the basis of two bad experiences.
• You wouldn’t conclude that all dogs are friendly
just because your neighbor has a friendly one.
• Thus,
• The smaller the sample size, the narrower the
scope or the more qualified your conclusion must
be. So, if your neighbor’s dog is friendly you can
claim “Some dogs are friendly.”
Accurate Representation

• Also important is proper sample ‘representation’.

• After discovering that 75% of people at a fundraiser

own expensive imported cars, can we conclude that
75% of every car owner in your city has an expensive
import? - No.
• The sample is not representative since it is
reasonable to assume that people attending a
fundraiser will be more wealthy than the average car
owner thus have a greater likelihood of owning a
more expensive car.
Representation and Randomization

• Samples must be representative of the target

population (e.g., students, voters, people who
collect cars…)
• Consider the fundraiser sample. Could we even
conclude that “Most wealthy people have a social
conscience?”
• No. For if we were to ask the guests at the fundraiser
that question, we’d have a bias sample since they
already show a desire to support needy causes.
• Our sample must be random. It must reflect the
variety that exists within the target group.
Points for Further Discussion

• There are many issues surrounding Induction that one

could delve into. For example, just because X is linked
to Y, doesn’t mean that X caused Y and hence, we
argue poorly if we claim that if X happens Y will also
happen and if Y doesn’t happen, then X must not have
happened. Accordingly, there many fallacies associated
with induction including Slippery Slopes, Hasty
Generalizations and Post Hoc’s that you’ll see in the
next chapter.
• However there’s also a major philosophical problem for
you to reflect upon.
The Problem of Induction

• We cannot prove what will happen on the basis of

the past. The sun may have risen for as long as
anyone can remember but we can’t PROVE it will rise
tomorrow.
• To ‘prove’ is to achieve deductive certainty.
• We can’t be sure that what has happened in the past
will continue on in the future or what has caused
something to happen previously will continue to do
so in the future because we won’t know until it
happens!
• But we live every moment of our lives as if we
could…we have to!
Deductive Argument example
(valid, unsound)
• I want to buy a car. I’ll either get a new Honda
or a used Toyota. If I get a new Honda, the
benefits are that it has a good warranty and
will last me a long time. If I get the used
Toyota, it doesn’t have a warranty and needs
new winter tires. I can’t afford the Honda,
therefor, I will buy the Toyota.
Inductive Argument (strong)
• I want to buy a car. According to Consumer
Reports Magazine, Honda’s are one of the
most reliable vehicles. I had a Honda in the
past and I liked it and it lasted a long time. I
know two other people with Hondas and they
report the same thing. Therefore, I’m going to
buy a Honda.
Analogies/Comparisons
• Pick an item in the room. (e.g., jacket, lights,
travel mug etc.)
• Ask your neighbour for what they picked.
• Identify things that those two items have in
common.
• “X is like Y in that they both…”
Analogies
• If you leave food in the oven on broil for a long time, it will burn
badly. If you stay outside in the sunshine for a long time, you will
burn badly.

• If you find a rotten apple in a barrelful of apples, you should throw

it out before it infects the others. Likewise, if you discover one of
your beliefs is false, you should dismiss it before it infects your
other beliefs. (summary of an analogy made by Rene Descartes)

• Celebrity A is very wealthy and posts a lot on social media about

politics. Celebrity B is very wealthy and also posts a lot on social
media about politics. I don’t agree with A’s views, so I won’t agree
with B’s either.
Argument from Analogy

Evaluated as ‘strong’; ‘weak’ or ‘improper’.

Draws similarity between two (or more) items.

“A is like B. Therefore, if A leads to C, B should

also lead to C.”

Items may have dissimilarities that may or may

not affect the strength of the argument.

30
Analogies

An analogy is a comparison between two cases.

The attractiveness of Analogies is based upon the
fact that consistency is an inherent feature of
rational thought. Consider:

Driving a car is just like reasoning in that both are

skills. Accordingly, since one learns how to drive by
practice, reasoning must also be learned by
practice.
Analogies
Primary Subject
In an analogy: The topic of the conclusion.

Primary Subject: Reasoning requires practice.

Analogies

Analogue
In an analogy: What the Primary Subject (the topic of
the conclusion) is being compared to.

Analogue: Driving is a skill.

Analogy

Standard Structure of Argument

Primary Subject has essential features 1,2,3.

Analogue has essential features 1,2,3.

Since the analogue has 1,2,3, this entailed W. It follows that:

The primary subject will also entail W.

Analogies
Analogies can be used to establish an argument.

e.g. You don’t accept ‘X’ ? But, ‘X’ is just like ‘Y’ and you accept
‘Y’, so you have to accept ‘X’.

Analogies can be used to refute an argument.

e.g. ‘Q’ is an unsuccessful argument because it has the same

structure as ‘R’ and we know ‘R’ is obviously a bad argument.
Use of Analogies
If I am healthy, then I am happy.
I am happy.
Therefore, I am healthy.

This is a bad argument although at first it may

seem appealing. Using an analogy we can see the
mistake in reasoning.
Use of Analogies

If I have a dog in this cage, then it is a mammal.

I do have a mammal in this cage.
Therefore, it is a dog.

Clearly this argument is unsuccessful since not all

mammals are dogs. The analogy shows us that the
problem is not with the subject matter but with the
structure of the argument. We can remove the terms and
insert letters (called variables) to stand for any term
whatsoever and see the problem.
Let’s look at another example in our next slide.
Use of Analogies – try these!
We can use analogies to point out good arguments and bad ones.
We give one example, then give another just like it.
If P, then Q No Good!
Q
Therefore, P
P = it is snowing, Q = the streets are wet
Rain can make the streets wet too!
By analogy, this argument is just as bad as:
P = she is a mother, Q = she is a female
Not all females are parents!
And this example is just as bad as:
P = I get 75%, Q = I pass the exam
Wouldn’t you pass if you received 100% or 50%?
Use of Analogies
If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.

Any argument with this structure commits the

Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.

The PROPER form is:

If P, then Q
P.
Therefore, Q
This correct structure is referred to as Modus Ponens. The
next slide uses the same variables from the previous slide
but puts them in this proper form.
Use of Analogies (Modus Ponens)
If P, then Q
P
Therefore, Q
P = it is snowing, Q = the streets are wet
If it is snowing, then the streets are wet. It is snowing.
Therefore the streets must be wet. -- It works!
P = she is a mother, Q = she is a female
If she is a mother, then she is a female. She is a mother.
Therefore, she must be female. -- It works!
P = I get 75%, Q = I pass the exam
If I get 75%, then I will pass the exam. I do get 75%. So I will
pass the exam! -- this one works too!
Analogies

A priori Analogy
A comparison in which the analogue may be
fictitious or hypothetical with no affect upon the
logical force of the argument.

Since I had trouble learning how to drive, when I

finally passed the road test, I felt as if I had been
given the Nobel Peace Prize!
Analogies
Inductive Analogy
The analogue must be a real case and the
features of the case are crucial to the logical
forces of the argument. Inductive Analogies are
typically used for making predictions.

I failed the last road test because I didn’t stop for

the red light. If I do something as serious as that
again, I won’t pass the next road test either.
Testing Analogies

• Is the analogue described correctly? (A priori). Did the analogue

actually happen as reported? (Inductive) If so, then the premises
pass the SATISFACTORY test.

• Determine which features of the analogue are relevant to the

conclusion of the analogue. Are there relevant similarities
between these features and those of the Primary Subject? If so,
then it PASSES the SUPPORT Test (namely that the premises offer
some support to the conclusion). If there are no similarities OR if
there are only irrelevant similarities then either 1) it is not an
analogy or 2) it is a Faulty Analogy.

• Are there any relevant differences? If so, then it FAILS. If there

are no differences or the differences are irrelevant then it has
SUFFICIENT SUPPORT for the conclusion.
Analogy Evaluation Process
• Suppose someone argues that downloading music files without the
permission of the copyright holder is just like walking into a store and
stealing a phone from the shelf. Both are not only illegal but
unethical.

• S = similarity, D = difference, R= relevant, C = conclusion

Downloading Phone

S1. You don’t have permission. *R* S1. You don’t have permission.
S2. You didn’t pay for it. *R* S2. You didn’t pay for it.
S3. Other people do it. *not R* S3. Other people do it.

D1.Requires technology. *not R* D1. Does not require technology.

D2. Level of risk is low. *not R* D2. Level of risk is high.
D3. You can download 1000’s of *not R* D3. You can only take what you can
songs. carry.

C1. Illegal and unethical C1. Illegal and unethical

Remember

• There are similarities and differences

between any two objects in the universe. - A
and B are similar in that they both exist and
different in that one is an A and one is a B!

• Similarities must be relevant.

• Dissimilarities must be irrelevant.

45
Analogies
Strong
Patient ‘A’ has symptoms 1, 2, 3.
Patient ‘B’ has symptoms 1, 2, 3.
So, A and B probably have the same illness.
Weak
Patient ‘A’ is in the Hospital.
Patient ‘B’ is in the Hospital.
So, A and B probably have the same illness.
Improper
Patient ‘A’ has brown hair.
Patient ‘B’ has brown hair.
So, A and B probably have the same illness.

46
ARGUMENTS

Our S-tests apply to all

deductive and
inductive arguments
as well as to
analogies.

47
ARGUMENT EVALUATION
Satisfactory Premises
It is reasonable to believe in the truth of
the claims being put forward. There
might not be a guarantee that they are
known for certain to be true, but there is
no evidence suggesting that they are
false.

48
ARGUMENT TEST
Support of Premises
Each premise is relevant in some way to the
conclusion. That is, they give some evidence
supporting the truth of the conclusion.
Sufficient Support of Premises
Considered together, the premises give sufficient
reason to rationally accept the conclusion.

To be Successful, the argument must pass all

three of the S –tests!

49
Key Terms

Deductively valid/invalid argument, Deductively Sound Argument,

Deductive Entailment, Inductively Strong/Weak Arguments,
Empirical Generalization, Strong/Weak/Faulty (Improper)
Analogies, Analogy, Primary Subject, Analogue, Consistency,
Modus Ponens, A Priori Analogy, Inductive Analogy, Counter
Analogy, Induction, Empirical claims, Probability, Generalizations,
Representative sample, Bias sample, Target population, Random
sample, Problem of Induction, Successful Argument,
Satisfactoriness of Premises, Support of Premises, Sufficient
Support of Premises.

50